Today’s Labor Updates:
A New Map, Defined by Gas
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 2 – 6, 2014
A New Map, Defined by Gas
JUNE 10, 2014 Vali R. Nasr
WASHINGTON — Get ready for a new map of global economic power, this one redrawn by American shale gas. It could change the landscape in two ways: reviving hope for American manufacturing, and prompting an American-Russian rivalry over the export of energy to Europe and Asia.
For decades, Americans have watched the cheap cost of factory labor catapult China to wealth and superpower status, and allow economies elsewhere — southern Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe — to climb the ladder of economic development. This has set in motion the largest transfer in global wealth and power since the rise of the West in the 18th century, while the West accustomed itself to growing unemployment, urban blight and rising opposition to globalization itself.
But shale gas could well reverse this trend, and in the process redraw some important strategic relationships. Natural gas is cleaner than coal; it is cheaper than nuclear power, and easier and quicker to develop. Existing technology can locate and mine huge gas reserves that have been detected but are difficult to reach, and then transport the gas across the world. That promises to make gas the critical energy source for global industrial output, displacing the cost of local labor from its pivotal role as the measure of where to build the most profitable new factory. In the next phase of globalization, the local cost of natural gas is more likely to be that yardstick. And that, in turn, could shift the relative weight of global wealth and political power.
President Obama is being realistic when he promises a return of manufacturing to America on the back of abundant and cheap gas supplies. Recognizing America’s potential, even energy producers like Qatar and Azerbaijan are already investing in the exploration for and distribution of American natural gas. And many in Asia now look to America as the next emerging market to fuel global economic growth.
The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster accelerated the turn to natural gas; in its aftermath, Japan and then Germany cut their dependence on nuclear power. Now experts predict that by 2035, natural gas consumption could grow by more than 50 percent, from 3.3 trillion cubic meters a year to 5.1 trillion — 25 percent of expected global energy demand. That has brought a spike in investment in gas pipelines and in facilities needed to transport liquefied natural gas, in anticipation of a restored American comparative advantage in manufacturing. Already, natural gas prices in America have fallen to less than half of the $17 to $18 per million B.T.U.s that they are in Asia. There is plenty of gas in energy hubs like Qatar, or under the Mediterranean and South China Seas, but it would be very costly to extract and transport, making it difficult for Asian economies to maintain their current cost advantages. And China’s labor costs are already inching up for other reasons.
So in coming decades, manufacturers may well find it difficult to justify paying twice as much for Middle Eastern gas imported to China as they would for natural gas extracted in the United States.
In such a world, China could find itself struggling more in its role as America’s main trade rival, and in the geostrategic role it feels its national wealth can buy.
But that doesn’t mean a shale gas revolution ensures America’s unrivaled primacy. Instead, it would shift the focus of rivalry in the direction of competition between America and Russia (and, in the future, perhaps Iran), for the position of the world’s most powerful energy supplier.
Iran and Russia have the largest reserves of natural gas in the world, and that will not change soon. Their reserves are cheaper and easier to extract than much of America’s, because they do not require the advanced technology and vast water resources that shale gas extraction demands. Nor does extraction from traditional sources carry as many risks to the environment as shale gas does, with its dependence on fracking. So it is conceivable that Russia and Iran would use their gas to lure manufacturing to their own territory, in the way China once used cheap labor.
But it is more likely that Russia — and Iran, too, if agreement over its nuclear program allowed the lifting of sanctions — would simply get richer by supplying cheap gas to America’s economic rivals, and in the process keep them economically competitive with America. Russia already plays such a role with Germany, providing it with gas at prices comparable to what American manufacturers pay. The recent $400 billion gas deal between Russia and China promises to guarantee China low energy costs by one day allowing China, like Germany, to get Russian gas through pipelines. Russia could also enter into a similar agreement with Korea and Japan.
In this scenario, there is a geostrategic challenge for the United States: Russia could emerge with great sway over both the supply and the price of natural gas, potentially playing the role that Saudi Arabia played at the height of global dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and making all of America’s main economic rivals in Europe and Asia dependent on Russia.
To avoid such an outcome, the United States must start now to develop a global energy strategy, designed to compete with Russia and to provide both Europe and Asia with viable alternatives to Russian gas. One possibility is that America could help China develop its own shale gas.
Most important, Congress should approve the export of America’s natural gas and support the building of terminals for shipping it. And America should, like Russia, be looking now to seal long-term gas deals with Europe and Asia. That could allow the United States to emerge a winner on both fronts of the new map of economic rivalries.
Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is the author of “The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat.”
Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 2 – 6, 2014
The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB. Inquiries should be directed to the Office of Public Affairs at Publicinfo@nlrb.gov or 202‑273‑1991.
Summarized Board Decisions
No published Board decisions issued.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Matson Terminals, Inc. (20-RC-121101) Honolulu, Hawaii, June 2, 2014. The Board denied the Employer’s request for review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decisions and Direction of Election as not raising substantial issues regarding whether the Acting Regional Director erred in not excluding Container Vessel Stevedoring (CVS) senior superintendents and CVS superintendents as supervisory employees. Member Johnson stated that, while he found the case to be a close one, he joined his colleagues in denying review as the Employer had failed to carry its burden of showing that the Acting Regional Director’s decision had departed from Board precedent or committed a clear error of fact. Petitioner—Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers, Local 996. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
Verizon Enterprise Delivery, LLC (07-RD-125769) Manchester, MI, June 2, 2014. Order denying the Union’s request for review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election on the ground that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union involved—Local 1106, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (32-RD-125204) Concord, CA, June 2, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to the Regional Director’s disposition of the challenged ballots to the election held April 22, 2014, the Board directed the Regional Director to open and count the two challenged ballots and the impounded ballots for Voting Group – Unit B. Thereafter, the Regional Director is to prepare a revised tally of ballots and issue the appropriate certification(s). Petitioner—an individual. Union involved—Engineers and Scientists of California, Local 20, IFPTE, AFL-CIO, CLC.
Entergy Operations, Inc. (15-RC-121665) Port Gibson, Mississippi, June 4, 2014. No exceptions having been filed to the Regional Director’s report overruling objections to a self-determination election held April 16 2014, the Board certified that Petitioner International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 605 may bargain for Technicians, Radiation Protection; Technicians, Radiation Protection Support; Lab Technicians, Chemistry, as part of the existing collective bargaining unit known as the “Craft” unit working at the Employer’s Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.
Structural Concrete Products, LLC (05-RC-116939) Manassas, VA, June 6, 2014. The Board, by a three-member panel consisting of Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and Schiffer, adopted the Regional Director’s recommendation to overrule the Employer’s objections alleging, inter alia, that the Union threatened employees about voting against the Union; that Union agents sat in a parked car in view of employees entering the facility to vote, and that the actions or inactions by the parties or the Board Agent violated the rights of the Employer and of employees to choose freely and fairly whether to be represented by the Union. Specifically with respect to the Employer’s Objection No. 3(b) alleging that the Union’s representatives remained in a car parked on the Employer’s lot within view of employees entering the facility to vote, the panel agreed with the Regional Director in finding the conduct not to be objectionable, and noted the absence of any evidence that the Union agents spoke to voters while at that location or that they were at any time present in the polling location itself or in any designated non-electioneering area. With respect to Objection No. 3(d), and the conduct of the Board agent in connection with advising an employee of his voting rights, the panel agreed with the Regional Director and noted also the absence of any evidence that the agent expressed any personal opinions that would tend to undermine confidence in the Board’s election process or that would reasonably be interpreted as impairing the election standards the Board seeks to maintain. Sonoma Health Care Center, 342 NLRB 933 (2004). Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 77, AFL-CIO. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
C Cases
Publi Inversiones de Puerto Rico Inc. d/b/a El Vocero (12-CA-120344) San Juan, PR, June 2, 2014. The Board denied the Employer’s petition to revoke a subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought. Further, the Board held that the employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. In addition, the Board noted that the Notice of Sale, as amended and approved by the bankruptcy court, states that: “Nothing in this Sale Order or the Asset Purchase Agreement shall be held to limit any independent obligation of the Buyer that potentially could arise after the closing pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 145 [sic] et seq.” Charge filed by Union de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas Anexas, Local 33225. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
Chenega Integrated Mission Support, LLC (28-CA-111598) Albuquerque, NM, June 2, 2014. The Board denied the Employer’s petition to revoke a subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the subpoena seeks information relevant to the matters under investigation and describes with sufficient particularity the evidence sought. The Board further found that the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union 359, AFL-CIO. Members Hirozawa, Johnson, and Schiffer participated.
Abco Steel Door, LLC (02-CA-110543 and 02-CA-110970, et al.) Bronx, NY. June 3, 2014. Decision and Order approving a formal settlement stipulation between the Respondent Employer, the Charging Party Union, and the General Counsel, and specifying actions the Respondent must take to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. Charges filed by an individual (02-CA-110543) and by United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 342 (02-CA-110970, et al.). Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
Entergy Operations, Inc. 15-CA-119780) Killona, LA, June 5, 2014. The Board denied the Employer’s petition to revoke a subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the subpoena seeks information relevant to the matters under investigation and describes with sufficient particularity the evidence sought. The Board further found that the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by International Union Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 709. Chairman Pearce and Members Johnson and Schiffer participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board decisions to report.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Fairfield Imports, LLC d/b/a Fairfield Toyota, Momentum Autogroup and Momentum Toyota of Fairfield (20-CA-035259, et al.; JD(SF)-20-14) Fairfield, CA. Administrative Law Judge John J. McCarrick issued his decision on June 3, 2014. Charges filed by Automotive Machinists Local Lodge No. 1173, District Lodge 190, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.
Flyte Tyme Worldwide (04-CA-115437; JD-31-14) Mahwah, NJ. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on June 3, 2014. Charge filed by an individual.
Professional Electrical Contractors of Connecticut, Inc. (34-CA-071532; JD(NY)-25-14) Plainville, CT. Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green issued his decision on June 4, 2014. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 35.
Rem Transportation Services, LLC, d/b/a Ambrose Auto & Autotrans Katayenko (01-CA-112724; JD(NY)-26-14) Bedford, MA. Administrative Law Judge Joel P. Biblowitz issued his decision on June 4, 2014. Charge filed by an individual.
Brinker International Payroll Company LP, a limited partnership (27-CA-110765; JD(NY)-27-14) Denver, CO. Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on June 4, 2014. Charge filed by The Sawaya & Miller Law Firm.
Kitsap Tenant Support Services, Inc. (19-CA-074715, et al.; JD(SF)-22-14) Bremerton and Port Angeles, WA. Administrative Law Judge Jay R. Pollack issued his decision on June 4, 2014. Charges filed by Washington Federation of State Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 28, AFL-CIO.
Lou’s Transport Inc., and T.K.M.S., Inc., a Single Employer and/or Joint Employers (07-CA-102517 and 113640; JD-32-14) Pontiac, MI. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on June 5, 2014. Charges filed by individuals.
Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas, Health & Welfare and Pension Funds (13-CA-117018; JD-33-14) Chicago, IL. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on June 5, 2014. Charge filed by Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Sun Cab, Inc. d/b/a Nellis Cab Company (28-CA-106245; JD(SF)-26-14) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on June 6, 2014. Charge filed by an individual.
PJ Cheese, Inc. (10-CA-113862; JD(ATL)-18-14) Birmingham, AL. Administrative Law Judge William Nelson Cates issued his decision on June 6, 2014. Charge filed by an individual.